BRUCE D. WHITE, CHIEF JUDGE RANDY I. BELLOWS ROBERT J. SMITH JAN L BRODIE BRETT A. KASSABIAN MICHAEL F. DEVINE JOHN M. TRAN GRACE BURKE CARROLL DANIEL E. ORTIZ PENNEY S. AZCARATE STEPHEN C. SHANNON THOMAS P. MANN RICHARD E. GARDINER DAVID BERNHARD DAVID A. OBLON JUDGES NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF VIRGINIA Fairfax County Courthouse 4110 Chain Bridge Road Fairfax, Virginia 22030-4009 703-246-2221 • Fax: 703-246-5496 • TDD: 703-352-4139 COUNTY OF FAIRFAX CITY OF FAIRFAX December 27, 2018 THOMAS A. FORTKORT JACK B. STEVENS J. HOWE BROWN F. BRUCE BACH M. LANGHORNE KEITH ARTHUR B. VIEREGG KATHLEEN H. MACKAY ROBERT W. WOOLDRIDGE, JR. MICHAEL P. McWEENY GAYLORD L. FINCH, JR STANLEY P. KLEIN LESLIE M. ALDEN MARCUS D. WILLIAMS JONATHAN C. THACHER CHARLES J. MAXFIELD DENNIS J. SMITH LORRAINE NORDLUND DAVID S. SCHELL LETTER OPINION RETIRED JUDGES Ms. Lily A. Saffer Surovell, Isaacs & Levy, PLC 4010 University Drive 2nd Floor Fairfax, VA 22030 Counsel for Petitioner Mr. Donald E. Anderson, III Fite, O'Brien & Anderson, Ltd. 1960 Gallows Road Suite 230 Vienna, VA 22182 Counsel for Respondent Re: In re A.V.T-A. 1 Case No. CL-2018-11314 Dear Counsel: This cause comes before the Court on the Petition of Mother ("Petitioner") for the name change of her minor child, A.V.T-A., to that of A.V.L-A., pursuant to Virginia Code 1 The subject child is referenced only by her initials and her biological parents and stepfather are not named herein. OPINION LETTER
11
Embed
CL-2018-11314 In re: AVT-A...Title CL-2018-11314 In re: AVT-A Keywords Judge David Bernhard Created Date 12/28/2018 10:40:36 AM
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
BRUCE D. WHITE, CHIEF JUDGE RANDY I. BELLOWS ROBERT J. SMITH
JAN L BRODIE BRETT A. KASSABIAN MICHAEL F. DEVINE
JOHN M. TRAN GRACE BURKE CARROLL
DANIEL E. ORTIZ PENNEY S. AZCARATE STEPHEN C. SHANNON
THOMAS P. MANN RICHARD E. GARDINER
DAVID BERNHARD DAVID A. OBLON
JUDGES
NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF VIRGINIA Fairfax County Courthouse
4110 Chain Bridge Road Fairfax, Virginia 22030-4009
THOMAS A. FORTKORT JACK B. STEVENS J. HOWE BROWN F. BRUCE BACH
M. LANGHORNE KEITH ARTHUR B. VIEREGG
KATHLEEN H. MACKAY ROBERT W. WOOLDRIDGE, JR.
MICHAEL P. McWEENY GAYLORD L. FINCH, JR
STANLEY P. KLEIN LESLIE M. ALDEN
MARCUS D. WILLIAMS JONATHAN C. THACHER CHARLES J. MAXFIELD
DENNIS J. SMITH LORRAINE NORDLUND
DAVID S. SCHELL
LETTER OPINION RETIRED JUDGES
Ms. Lily A. Saffer Surovell, Isaacs & Levy, PLC 4010 University Drive 2nd Floor Fairfax, VA 22030
Counsel for Petitioner
Mr. Donald E. Anderson, III Fite, O'Brien & Anderson, Ltd. 1960 Gallows Road Suite 230 Vienna, VA 22182
Counsel for Respondent
Re: In re A.V.T-A. 1
Case No. CL-2018-11314
Dear Counsel:
This cause comes before the Court on the Petition of Mother ("Petitioner") for the
name change of her minor child, A.V.T-A., to that of A.V.L-A., pursuant to Virginia Code
1 The subject child is referenced only by her initials and her biological parents and stepfather are not named herein.
OPINION LETTER
Re: In re A.V.T-A. Case No. CL-2018-11314 December 27, 2018 Page 2 of 11
§ 8.01-217. "T" is Mother's maiden name, "A" is Father's surname, and "L" is Stepfather's
surname and Mother's current legal surname.
This Court has the authority to order a change of name for a minor child if such
change is in the best interest of the child. There is scant precedent defining specifically
the confines of when it is in the child's best interest for the Court to grant a change in her
name. The broad standard applicable is that the Petitioner must demonstrate "substantial
reasons exist for the change." An illustrative, non-exhaustive, factored analysis for
application of such principle was articulated by the Supreme Court of Virginia in Spero v.
Heath, 267 Va. 477, 593 S.E.2d 239 (2004). From those factors this Court gleans there
are at least two limiting principles of application in child name change cases. First, the
Court should not by grant of a name change diminish any significant existing ties between
the child and the parents whose last name she carries. Second, the child conversely
should not be subjected to substantial embarrassment or distress, product of maintaining
the surname sought to be changed or supplemented. While each petition concerning the
name change of a minor child is to be examined on a case-by-case basis to discern what
is in the best interest of such individual child, the aforementioned guidance suggests the
bookends within which this Court may consider making its balanced determination.
Consequently, and in application of the principles aforesaid to the facts adduced,
this Court shall by separate order GRANT Mother's Petition for the name change of her
minor child.
OPINION LETTER
Re: In re A.V.T-A. Case No. CL-2018-11314 December 27. 2018 Page 3 of 11
BACKGROUND
Mother and Father are the natural parents of a minor child, A.V.T-A., seven years
in age. Mother and Father were never married, and the child's current legal surname is a
hyphenation of the birth parents' surnames. At a point after the child's birth, Mother
married and took her husband's surname. Mother and Stepfather have additional children
together, each of whom bear Stepfather's surname.
Mother and Father share joint legal custody of the minor child, but Mother has
primary physical custody. Since the child's birth, Father has regularly traveled from
California to Virginia to visit the child, relocated to Virginia, and then continued regularly
to travel to Virginia to visit the child upon his relocation back to California. Father travels
from California to visit the child in Virginia as often as every five weeks, for a period of
five to six consecutive days.
On July 30, 2018, Mother filed a petition, pursuant to Virginia Code § 8.01-217, to
change part of A.V.T-A.'s surname to exclude Mother's maiden name and replace it with
Stepfather's surname, i.e., yielding for the child a hyphenation of Stepfather's and
Father's surnames. Father objected to the petition.
At trial, Father expressed concern that, if the petition for name change were
granted, he would be alienated from his child's life. Father manifested his fear of such
alienation by presenting evidence, such as a copy of the child's christening
announcement and a copy of the child's gymnastics registration, each of which was
prepared by Mother or one of her relatives, and included Mother's maiden name only to
the exclusion of Father's name. Father posited such evidence demonstrates Mother is
already excluding his surname from use when referencing the child. He contends he will
OPINION LETTER
Re: In re A.V.T-A. Case No. CL-2018-11314 December 27, 2018 Page 4 of 11
be further excluded should the petition for name change be granted, for then the child
would only be referred to by the Stepfather's surname in similar circumstances.
Mother, on the other hand, presented evidence of various school and activity
registrations she submitted using the child's full current legal name, including Father's
surname. Mother also testified the child is undergoing a great deal of distress stemming
from the fact her current legal name does not match in any way that of Mother, Stepfather,
or her half-siblings. The child is the only one in her primary household left with Mother's
maiden name. There was testimony at trial of an episode where the child was
inconsolable in consideration of her current name, that she is in the care of a therapist to
address this issue, and that it is the child's own passionate desire for her name to be
changed. Mother's position is that she is not cutting Father out of the child's life, that she
actively uses the child's full legal name, that the alteration to Mother's married name
would not diminish the child's bond with her Father, and that the name change is yearned
for by the child and required for her emotional well-being.
ANALYSIS
This Court derives its authority to change the name of a minor child from Virginia
Code § 8.01-217. In relevant part, that section states:
On any such application and hearing, if such be demanded, the court, shall, unless the evidence shows that the change of name is sought for a fraudulent purpose or would otherwise infringe upon the rights of others or, in a case involving a minor, that the change of name is not in the best interest of the minor, order a change of name.
Va. Code § 8.01-217(C) (emphasis added). The petitioning parent, in this case Mother,
has the burden of proving "by satisfactory evidence that the change is in the child's best
OPINION LETTER
Re: In re A.V.T-A. Case No. CL-2018-11314 December 27, 2018 Page 5 of 11
interest." See Spero, 267 Va. at 479-80, 593 S.E.2d at 240-41 (citing Roland v. Shurbutt,
S.E.2d 909, 911 (1986); Flowers, 218 Va. at 237, 237 S.E.2d at 113). "For most citizens,
the statute speaks in fairly permissive terms . . ." Leonard v. Commonwealth, No.
170965, at *3, 2018 WL 6566790, at *2 (Va. Dec. 13, 2018). The applicable statutory
section is worded in a manner that imposes on this Court the requirement it find the name
change not to be in the interest of the child before denying such relief. This distinction is
subtle but of significance, for it suggests the General Assembly intended courts give
mature consideration to child name change requests before rejecting the same. This
chosen construction of the statute may further be calculated to facilitate unopposed name
changes without the courts having to make affirmative findings that the change is, as
opposed to is not, in the best interest of the child. The evidentiary burden on the Petitioner
notwithstanding, if this Court were to deny the child's name change, it is thus required to
detail not merely that the Petitioner has not met her burden, but also why the evidence
compels the conclusion the name change is not in the best interest of the child.
In Spero, the Supreme Court of Virginia articulated
[t]he petitioning parent may prove that the name change is in the best interest of the minor by showing that:
1) The parent sharing his or her surname with the minor has "abandoned the natural ties ordinarily existing between parent and child,"
2) The parent sharing his or her surname with the minor "has engaged in misconduct sufficient to embarrass the [minor] in the continued use" of the parent's name,
3) The minor "otherwise will suffer substantial detriment" by bearing the surname he or she currently bears, or
OPINION LETTER
Re: In re A.V.T-A. Case No. CL-2018-11314 December 27, 2018 Page 6 of 11
4) The minor "is of sufficient age and discretion to make an intelligent choice and . . . desires that [his or her] name be changed."
Spero, 267 Va. at 479-80, 593 S.E.2d at 240 (citing Flowers v. Cain, 218 Va. 234, 236-
37, 237 S.E.2d 111, 113 (1977)). "Flowers and Spero merely provide a non-exclusive list
of 'substantial reasons' that have been recognized by [the Supreme Court of Virginia] and
others as prima facie evidence that the name change is in the child's best interest."